Well Matt,if UKIP are not going to be elected there's no reason for anybody not to vote for them. Just a protest vote, you understand. Certainly UKIP is a sensible refreshing change from the other political idiots. It seems as if you and a number of others have been taken in by the media presentation of UKIP as a one-issue party. They're not, and come the elections they will have a well-formed program of policies which will be no more crazy than the other parties' promises. But I'm fervently hoping they'll get into government at least long enough to take us away from the madness that is the European Union. At least the real establishment powers-that-be will not be stupid enough to attempt anything more than character assassination on Farage. Another plane or car crash would be too much of a co-incidence...

Actually, every political party (except for those representing totalitarian ideologies) contains people with a diverse range of views, whilst sharing certain basic political attitudes. But those whose views or attitudes lie noticeably outside the range of any party will sooner or later move towards their own ground.

The major problem with the EU is its corporatist/technocratic political system, with the European Commission being equivalent to the old Soviet Politburo. The way it was set up, its unaccountability and undemocratic structure is there by design. The system is wide open to corruption.

A law is passed because some group of scientists/academics/Eurocrats, often influenced by lobbyists from big business, decided it should be passed; it's hard to tell where the laws have come from and there is little that citizens can do to stop them unless they can organise an activist group (a major undertaking) and get it accepted into the technocratic system so that its voice can actually be heard. Since getting accepted basically means agreeing with the system itself, it is hard for contrary voices to have any effect.

You don't have to be a Daily Mail reader to disapprove of an undemocratic, unaccountable political system. The fact that the Eurocrats may believe they are making the right decisions on behalf of us little people doesn't make that the right way to run a continent.

I posted this on the 'politics' thread but it's probably more pertinent here:

â€˜The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom of a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed.â€™
Adolph Hitler.

We're asked to believe that Philip Marshall shot his kids, and his dog, and then shot himself; that neighbours never heard the shots; and that he did this despite there being no apparent motive.

The former airline pilot's controversial conspiracy book 'The Big Bamboozle: 9/11 and the War on Terror' was released last year. While he was writing it, Marshall believed that his life was in danger because of the allegations involved.

He is not the only person with connections to top-secret work, questionable events, or Government decisions, whose death has been too quickly explained away, leaving more questions than answers.

We are a step closer to a European totalitarian police state. 'Anti-feminism' could be made a crime. Earlier this month in Rome a council comprised of former European heads of state called on the European Parliament to establish national surveillance units to monitor citizens suspected of anti-feminist leanings.Note: not 'inciting hatred of women', but 'anti-feminist'. A profound difference.

Nobody would have a problem with laws to ban discrimination and incitement to hatred against women (and why not also men), ethnic groups, and so on. But, since feminism is effectively a political pressure group based upon false ideological principles (patriarchy, rape culture, etc.), the proposal reported below is equivalent to banning any criticism of, say, Greenpeace, or the BNP or any political party. This is not about equality, justice or fairness. It's about stifling political and academic debate.

The European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation (ECTR), a â€œtolerance watchdogâ€, which includes former presidents of the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Albania, Latvia, and Cyprus, and former prime ministers of Spain and Sweden, made the proposal in a report delivered during a 45-minute speech to the European Parliamentâ€™s Committee on Civil Liberties (LIBE).

The proposal, titled the Framework National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance, calls for â€œconcrete action to combat intolerance, in particular with a view to eliminating racism, colour bias, ethnic discrimination, religious intolerance, totalitarian ideologies, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, anti-feminism and homophobia.â€ These â€œspecial administrative units,â€ the report says, â€œshould preferably operate within the Ministry of Justice.â€

â€œThere is no need to be tolerant to the intolerant,â€ it states, especially â€œas far as freedom of expression is concerned.â€ It also calls for actual criminal sanctions to be levied against offenders.

European Dignity Watch, a civil rights watchdog group based in Brussels, has warned that this directive â€œaims to impose governmental control over the social and economic behavior of citizens in the widest possible sense.â€ In a scathing critique, the group says that the ECTR Frameworkâ€™s basic principles are flawed and that it â€œinterferes in an unprecedented manner with citizensâ€™ freedom and rightsâ€ and â€œdistorts the concepts of â€˜justiceâ€™ and â€˜equalityâ€™.â€

Great post from the OP, great topic and linked to so many other areas that also don't add up.

We all know something's not adding up don't we, even the most unaware people can sense something's up.

The press will never report acurately on the inconsistencies and apparent unfairness of these double standards, because if you look into who owns the media organisations, although operating under different names, they all fees back to the same very few sources, and we're talking TV, and newspapers etc. the media is used only as a tool to control us and force us to believe in what those in control want us to. Mindless shows like X factor are used to distract and dumb down and unfortunately even sport is seen as a way to distract those of us who otherwise might be inclined to think more for ourselves and be motivated enough to actually do something about it, and therefore a threat to those in power....illuminati if you like

Then take into account the other ways in which out natural vibrancy and intelligence is being suppressed. The chemicals in the food, cancer causing, brain frazzling, read about aspartame to name but one of them. The schooling system, dumbed down, answer this, does schooling encourage freedom of thought, does it teach us to think for ourselves? Or does it teach us to memorise and regurgitate onto an exam paper. Does it encourage us to question authority, or adhere to it without thought.

Now, do a quick google search on writers who have dared to publish or attempt to publish their research that falls outside the agenda. Hunter s Thompson for one, but there are so many others, all dead. Ask yourself about doctor david Kelly, do you think he committed suicide??

This is a snippet of an answer to try to instigate anyone interested enough, to do further research and also address the original post, in that, of course we go to war and demonise those countries with no press freedom, there is a far bigger agenda in play.

To finish, I don't believe this is how humanity has to be, I don't believe it's human nature to go to war and kill. But the media does it's job.

The vacation of the European Unionâ€™s institutions is over. Consequently, the Eurocrats are now back at trying to stamp out more individual rights from the population and increase the power of Brussels over the peoples of Europe. The EU is a constant generator of totalitarian measures so even if the resolution that attempts to stamp out individual economic freedom will fail, the next attack on individual freedoms is already drafted.

The EUâ€™s latest document is a called: â€œThe European framework national statute for the promotion of toleranceâ€[4] which is a document elaborated with a view to being enacted by the legislatures of all the 28 unfortunate nations that are members of this club. Whatâ€™s wrong with â€œpromotion of toleranceâ€ one might ask. As you will see in the following lines, â€œpromotion of toleranceâ€ means something entirely different than what it means to reasonable people. And basically the entire document looks more like a statue of the Thought Police and the Ministry of Truth.

In the Section 1 of the document, the EU defines its terms. So terms like â€œhate crimeâ€, â€œgroupâ€ and â€œtoleranceâ€ are being introduced. Of particular interest is the EUâ€™s definition of â€œgroup libelâ€[5]:

â€œGroup libelâ€ means: defamatory comments made in public and aimed against a group as defined in paragraph (a) â€“ or members thereof â€“ with a view to inciting to violence, slandering the group, holding it to ridicule or subjecting it to false charges.

As we will soon see, feminists are also de facto part of the â€œgroupâ€ notion â€“ so holding feminists to ridicule, as they deserve, will now be a crime. We know this from the Section 2e of the document which says[6]:

Yes, you read it correctly. The European Union is dedicating an entire law to force the governments of 28 nations to take concrete action to combat anti-feminism. The other elements of the list should also be looked with suspicion despite the fact that they seem well-intended. For instance, campaigning against male circumcision can bring you criminal charges of â€œIslamophobiaâ€ under this law. Campaigning against female circumcision, though, will bring you a big pat on the back from the politically correct Eurofanatics, despite the fact that the practice is illegal everywhere in Europe. Also, the â€œtotalitarian ideologiesâ€ is quite vague and contradictory, given that the EU itself sponsors Communist organizations, itâ€™s being lead by a Maoist and now attempts to deem feminism as a State truth.

In the Section 3, the one dealing with the guaranties of rights, the EU explains us clearly that it wants the State to make sure that no individual dares to be an anti-feminist[7]:

Tolerance (â€¦) shall be guaranteed towards any group (â€¦), especially in the enjoyment of the following human rights:

Explanatory Notes: (â€¦) Guarantee of tolerance must be understood not only as a vertical relationship (Government-to-individuals) but also as a horizontal relationship (group-to-group and person-to-person). It is the obligation of the Government to ensure that intolerance is not practised either in vertical or in horizontal relationships.

Therefore, not wanting to hire feminist ideologues, which tend to be competent at exactly nothing, can now bring you a criminal lawsuit. Also, the rights allowed under the Section 3 of this document can be limited under the Section 4 of this document if they happen to create inconveniences to the sexual trade union of feminism. But they are perfectly fine if they destroy menâ€™s lives though. Section 4d explains it quite clearly[8]:

The rights guaranteed in Section 3 are subject to the following limitations, applied in a proportionate manner as necessary in a democratic society:[...]

(d) Public morals.

Explanatory Note: Examples: tolerance does not denote acceptance of such practices as female circumcision, forced marriage, polygamy or any form of exploitation or domination of women.

What is not explicitly forbidden means it is implicitly allowed. And since the explanatory note of the Section 4 states that the list is exhaustive â€“ the only logical conclusion that one can draw is that tolerance means acceptance of such practices as male circumcision, polyandry or any form of exploitation or domination of men and this is even necessary in a democratic society. You canâ€™t make this stuff up! And if this amount of feminist privilege isnâ€™t enough, hereâ€™s some more. The Section 6 of the document, dealing with implementation explicitly tells us that the State must make female privilege the rule of the land.

The section 6a reads: To ensure implementation of this Statute, the Government shall:[...]

a) Be responsible for the special protection of vulnerable and disadvantaged groups.

Explanatory Notes:
(i) Members of vulnerable and disadvantaged groups are entitled to a special protection, additional to the general protection that has to be provided by the Government to every person within the State.
(ii) The special protection afforded to members of vulnerable and disadvantaged groups may imply a preferential treatment. Strictly speaking, this preferential treatment goes beyond mere respect and acceptance lying at the root of tolerance (â€¦). Still, the present provision is justified by the linkage between historical intolerance and vulnerability.

Section 6b reads: Without prejudice to existing control mechanism, set up a special administrative unit in order to supervise the implementation of this Statute.[...]

Explanatory note:
ii) The special administrative unit should preferably operate within the Ministry of Justice (although the Ministry of the Interior is another reasonable possibility).

It is a chance of one in 30 billion for such a body not to be lead by a politically correct ideologue. Also, the Ministries of the Interior are the ones managing the secret services in most (if not all) European nations. In Sweden there have already been reports of the FRA (the Swedenâ€™s NSA) closely supervising Fathersâ€™ Rights Activists in a STASI-like manner. What makes you think that this might not come to your country next if this law is passed?

Section 7 deals with penal sanctions and basically opens the door to criminal charges and arrests for people who dare to disagree with the politically correct ideologues that run the European Union. Section 7a reads:

The following acts will be regarded as criminal offences punishable as aggravated crimes[9]:

(i) Hate crimes (â€¦)
(ii) Incitement to violence against a group(â€¦)
(iii) Group libel as defined in Section 1(b).
(iv) Overt approval of a totalitarian ideology, xenophobia or anti-Semitism.
(v) Public approval or denial of the Holocaust.
(vi) Public approval or denial of any other act of genocide the existence of which has been determined by an international criminal court or tribunal

So, basically, ridiculing feminism shall be regarded as a criminal offence punishable as aggravated crime. This is exactly how the Criminal Code of Romania looked like during the Marxist-Leninist dictatorship. In the 1950s, one could get up to 10 years of imprisonment for speaking against â€œthe social order.â€ The social order was Stalinism back then. Now itâ€™s Marxism-Feminism. The differences between them are becoming increasingly harder to notice.

Also, the EU itself is in violation of Section 7a(ii) and Section 7a(vi), considering that class warfare is openly promoted by various committees and subcommittees of the European Parliament and considering that the crimes against humanity committed in Europe by the Communist regimes are publicly denied by the EU[10].

If you are a minor and dare to hold anti-feminist views and express them, the Big Maoist Brother has a special place for you designed by the Thought Police â€“ an indoctrination camp. Well, they donâ€™t call it like that but the purpose is identical. Section 7b reads:

Juveniles convicted of committing crimes listed in paragraph (a) will be required to undergo a rehabilitation programme designed to instill in them a culture of tolerance.

So if a 14 year old boy dares to notice that women are not oppressed in Europe and that the education system in which he is forced to go is centered around girls and girls only, the boys will be sent to a â€œrehabilitation programmeâ€ to instill in him a â€œculture of tolerance.â€ The Soviet Union had a similar program for those who dared to disagree with the Marxist-Leninist approach. It was considered that those who disagreed must be mentally challenged or something else has to be wrong with them to disagree with the wonders of scientific socialism. The same line of reasoning is used here as well. Since feminist ideologues know all too well that their ideology is so thin that even a prepubescent child can see through their lies, they are deeming all dissenters as being sick and in urgent need of â€œrehabilitation.â€

This is how totalitarianism consolidates itself!

And since some people might be reluctant to send people to jail or to â€œrehabilitation programsâ€ for speaking the truth, the EU takes care to introduce a carrot as well to stimulate the allegations to skyrocket. Section 7f reads[11]:

(f) Free legal aid will be offered to victims of crimes listed in paragraph (a), irrespective of qualification in terms of impecuniosity

So, basically, one can sue anyone for holding anti-feminist views, demand money, claim to be a victim, send the â€œoffenderâ€ to jail and all this on taxpayersâ€™ money. Isnâ€™t the EU a wonderful place?

Section 8 deals with â€œeducationâ€ and basically demands that everyone be subjected to politically correct propaganda starting with 7 year old children in elementary school and ending with judges and lawyers.

The last section of the document, Section 9, deals with mass-media and demands that all mass-media be remodeled using the ideological lens of the statists that run the European Union and kindly makes another subtle suggestion that the Internet should be regulated â€“ for your own safety, of course. Because heaven forbid you might see something you donâ€™t like on the Internet!

The problems with this document arenâ€™t only related to feminist ideology being shoved down the throats of 28 unfortunate nations since it also contains provisions that basically grant special privileges and entitlements to immigrants over the taxpayers. Itâ€™s like me coming into your house without your consent and then have the State put you in the bathroom while granting the rest of the house to me.

Also, the first Section basically makes satire illegal â€“ even satire of historical figures (if those figures happen to be non-white men). The whole document is a mess for any person who doesnâ€™t subscribe to political correctness. But even for the feminist-orientated content alone this document is worth opposing fiercely.

Our most basic right â€“ freedom of speech and conscience â€“ is severely under threat right now and, as usual, the mainstream media remains silent about the issue.

The European Union, albeit a totalitarian body, is a very slow institution. Consequently, it takes a lot of time for such nonsense to end up on the voting table of the European Parliament and it can be dismissed at any of the bureaucracies that goes through. This process can take up to 2 years. For instance, the proposal to stamp out economic freedom has first been made by the European Commission (the only body that has the right to propose legislation â€“ just like in the USSR the Politburo had the sole right to summon a vote in the Supreme Soviet) in 2011.

If we are to follow the EUâ€™s usual protocol, sometime this month another meeting regarding this document will take place after the ECTR presentation that took place on September 17[12]. At least one more meeting with FEMM committee[13] (and yes, the European Parliament actually has a committee called FEMM) must take place though it is not unlikely to have this document also go through another judicial committee, even though the September 17 LIBE meeting is said to have included the opinion of â€Group of Eminent Legal Expertsâ€ and this could be deemed enough.

After these committees, the next big step is have it go through the Council of the European Union (also known informally as the Council of Ministers). These long names and acronyms might seem complicated (and arguably they are) but the main idea is that after the ideologues in the small committees are done putting their totalitarian worldview on paper, this document needs to be seen by the Ministers of the 28 nations that are members of this club.

The Council of Ministers doesnâ€™t have clear standing members and its membership varies depending on the topic discussed. But its composition is always the same: one minister from each country that belongs to the EU. Most likely, this document will be discussed when the Council will meet to discuss social issues â€“ which means that each country will be represented by a Minister from the social issues (Minister of Welfare, Minister of Women â€“ for the UK and Germany -, Minister of Labor, etc.). Sometimes a secretary of State is sent to represent the country in the Council though these situations are rarer.

What can you do now? Since the next step in the foreseeable future is the discussion of this document in the Council of Ministers, the most effective thing that you can do is to start contacting members of your government, especially those that deal with social issues (who are more likely to represent your country in the Council when this document will be discussed) and tell them why do you think this document should be rejected altogether. We will also publish various scripts but it would be even better if youâ€™d write them in you own words. Also, check the official directory of the European Union[14] to get the name and the contacts of those officials from your country that regularly attend the meetings of the Council of Ministers and start with them.

There are countries that are due to hold elections (Germany comes to mind now). If you live in one of these countries that will hold elections in the next 12 months, do no hesitate to let your elected officials know that you will purposefully campaign against them if they uphold this document. Politicians donâ€™t care about your freedoms or about men â€“ but they do care about votes!

These kinds of documents are usually passed without the national parliaments even being asked. However, the national parliaments, if theyâ€™re notified by the citizens, can pass a resolution forcing the government to adopt a certain position under the threat of a censure motion (a motion that can sack the government). This is unlikely to happen in big countries such as Germany and France or in impeccably progressive countries like Sweden. However, in smaller countries, such as Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia or Luxembourg, this is quite feasible. This is an option for you to consider if you live in a country where this kind of activism has real chances of success. If this kind of activism succeeds even in one country â€“ thatâ€™s a huge deal because in the Council of Ministers (unlike the European Parliament) each country gets an equal vote, as opposed to the European Parliament where countries have unequal numbers of representatives depending on their population.

Also, probably amongst the first thing that you should do is to familiarize yourself with the way the Council of the European Union (or the Council of Ministers) works[15].

Civil disobedience. Make a blog with anti-feminist content. You can start by making this issue known in your native tongue. This is crucial for the success in defeating this bill. Also, if possible, make flyers with anti-feminist content (preferably by making this bill known) and distribute them. Read the bill carefully. You will find enough things to make non-MRA individuals join your efforts. Adapt your material to every subset of audience you wish to appeal. It is important for opposition to this bill to appear in as many languages and countries of the EU as possible.

If you cannot do street activism for various reasons, make sure you make your newly created blog known. It doesnâ€™t matter if you feel you are not a good writer. Just start writing and spamming everyone with your newly created blog. For more efficiency and increased appeal to audience â€“ you can even make the blog to be single-issue, strictly for opposing this bill.

Speak publicly as much as possible against the bill. The power of words is unimaginable, thatâ€™s why the powers that be want the words banned. You donâ€™t have to be a good public speaker. Just open your mouth in casual circles whenever the situation is fit. For instance, if you hear someone in a store saying â€œa woman came to rob my houseâ€ tell them that they might end up in jail for saying that and direct them to this article or your blog or any other resource that talks extensively about this bill.

Join us this Friday on The Voice of Europe where we will be talking more about this bill and will suggest more ways of activism. Also, if you have other ideas, feel free to let us know in the comments or, even better, call in this Friday on the radio program.

This has to be stopped! And its demise starts with you!

At the end of it all, it's all just words. Trying to defeat this tiptoe tyrannical power structure using politics or protest will never work, you can't change things for the better using the same construct that created the issue in the first place.

For me the answer is clear, we as people have tremendous power when we band together en masse. Mass no conformity is the answer, not in a negative way, just simply saying no.

ferrarilover wrote:How do you keep your tinfoil hat from blowing away in the wind?

Matt.

Sadly it's this dismissive mindset and willingness to take the p1$$ and bury ones head in the sand that has throughout recorded history and further back than that, allowed those in power to become tyrants and commit some of the most heinous crimes know to man.

Matt, lets take this from a macro level to a micro level, if someone has an agenda and the fruition of their plans generally wouldn't be ideal for you, but to bring those plans to reality, they have to act in way that doesn't arouse suspicion, they'll say things like, "you know you can trust me pal", or, "hey, you know what so and so said about you?" Etc etc, they will make you think they are your friend, and that they are the only one you can trust, whilst all the while, behind your back they are undermining you, and turning people against you. And you don't suspect a thing before its way too late.

Or, I guess I could just be a paranoid conspiracy theorist. Because two planes could definitely bring down those towers, even though thermite was found on the supporting structure, with neatly sheered at an angle ends, they didn't fall in the manner of every other controlled demolition at all. And what of building 7??

Gullscorer wrote:Just heard Nigel Farage's speech at the UKIP conference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlhaLnYmIYY Excellent; just what this country needs, speaking on topics about which the other three main political parties want to stifle debate.

No doubt the EU, the BBC, the media, and the other political parties will seek to smear and demonise and denigrate Farage and UKIP and their policies between now and the coming elections.

In fact they've already started, making a big thing about Godfrey Bloom cracking a joke (following his recent 'Bongo Bongo Land' remarks) about women not cleaning behind their fridges, referring to them as 'sluts', this in a jocular situation where he was effectively prompted into the remark by a female, with everybody laughing, and the event recorded by the feminist Huffington Post. Every political party has one or two idiots. This man obviously doesn't have the brains to realise he was being set up. He has rightly been suspended by UKIP before he produces any further damaging utterances. The media will try to misrepresent UKIP as a party of racist and sexist politicians. But the electorate are more intelligent than that.

Either that or he was placed there to act as an agent provocateur. Job done.

ferrarilover wrote:Ukip are almost as dangerous as the Green Party. They have one main line of attack and they will sacrifice everything else in pursuit of that. Once they've demonised all the Muslims and withdrawn us from the protection of Europe, then what? What about the roads or press regulation or the cost of the TV license or anything else. They know they won't be elected, so they can say what they like. They can make all the empty, ill thought-out, basist promises they like to appeal to the Daily Mail reading faux middle class, but once they're in, the realities of day to day politics will be entirely beyond them. We saw a similar thing, but to a much lesser extent with the Lib Dems. They spent years promising to give out free this and massively increased that, then they came to some power and found that they had to make good on their promises. Unfortunately, the cost of doing all they had promised was greater than the amount of money in existence, so they couldn't do it.

Theoretical politics is lovely, we all like to indulge in it with our mates down the pub
However, the reality of the world doesn't allow for it. We'd all give free health care to everyone always and build a million miles of new road and turf out all those who really shouldn't be here and lock up burglars for 100,000 years. Sadly, the are so many hurdles between Eutopia and reality that we have to be content with some mediocre middle ground.

Matt.

So you are an anarchist then, seems you believe politics is pointless and purely thereto quell the masses and make them think they have freedom and choice.

Gullscorer wrote:I posted this on the 'politics' thread but it's probably more pertinent here:

â€˜The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom of a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed.â€™
Adolph Hitler.